Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
What if the Bible were to tell you that pi = 3 - 1 Kings 7:23?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What if the Bible were to tell you that pi = 3 - 1 Kings 7:23?What if the Bible were to tell you that 5+4=10?
It seems to me that you can't present a clear definition of Christian life, nor is there a way to test for its presence.
I suspect it will have to remain a point of personal faith and conviction, and not of testability, definition and science.
Which rocks do not have, so I still do not understand why you claim they are alive. Heck, if one defined life as items which have blood, you'd consider more than half of the organisms considered alive not to be.
Even if you defined blood as "a fluid within something", most rocks still wouldn't be considered alive under those extremely weird life and blood definitions.
May I ask what class you're teaching? I somehow doubt that it is biology...
May I ask what class you're teaching? I somehow doubt that it is biology...
May I ask what class you're teaching? I somehow doubt that it is biology...
You are right. I never teach biology. In fact, I never learn biology.
It was kinda obvious that you've never learned biology. But I still would like to know what class you're teaching.
I apologise, I am not trying to run away.I did it very clearly. I am talking about science, not faith.
Are you trying to run away from the discussion? I was expecting your positive comment.
I apologise, I am not trying to run away.
It's just that none of your definitions are clear. You present examples with individual explanations, but the explanations have been either inconsistent (rocks have have internal processes but trees do not) or based on undefined or undefinable terms (blood is necessary for life but does not in itself have a definition).
That definition doesn't work if you can't define blood.So, let me do it one more time, in a clear way:
Christian definition of life: A life has and must have blood. Or: a natural system which has blood, then it is a life.
Good enough?
Scientifically, it is a better definition than those we have now.
That definition doesn't work if you can't define blood.
No, that is a definition problem. You are using an undefined term, so your definition is in turn undefined.That is a scientific problem, not a definition problem. However it is defined in science, it will be applied to the definition.
Think, the meaning of blood to people 3000 years ago is different from that to people today. However, the definition works then as it does now.
No, that is a definition problem. You are using an undefined term, so your definition is in turn undefined.
In addition, you have not presented a definition of "blood" that even applies to the series of examples you are using. Rocks do not bleed, they do not have internal processes analogous to animals. Plants do not bleed, but they do have internal processes vaguely analogous to animals.
You seem to want to hold onto the assertion that you support science and have a clear alternative definition for life, but have so far been completely incapable of presenting it.
Of course, your math example is a non sequitur.No, it doesn't.
The Bible is right, whether I'm wrong or not.
5+4=9, and if someone thinks it equals 10, that statement is still correct: 5+4=9.
Would you know it if It was?I never said that the Bible is wrong. It is absolutely right in teaching us morality and ethics. What it is not is a history or a science book, especially the first five books.
Would you know it if It was?
And if so ... how?
I'll agree that It is neither a science, nor a history Book; but I won't agree It doesn't contain science and history.
In other words, the Bible is not a science book; the Bible is not a history book; but the Bible contains both science and history.
There's a difference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?